Lord Janner 'abused children in Parliament', claims MP

Mr Danczuk was speaking in a Westminster Hall debate

Lord Janner has been accused in Parliament of being a serial abuser who attacked children inside the Palace of Westminster.

Labour MP Simon Danczuk said police had told him they wanted to bring 22 historical charges against Lord Janner, dating between 1969 and 1988.

The director of public prosecutions (DPP) announced in April that he would not be charged because of his dementia, although that decision is under review.

The ex-MP denies any wrongdoing.

Lord Janner's family has said that the peer "is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing".

DPP Alison Saunders said Lord Janner's dementia was so severe that he could "play no part in a trial".

Police condemned the CPS decision as "wrong", and the Labour Party has suspended the 86-year-old peer.

'Public interest'

Speaking in a Westminster Hall debate about the Crown Prosecution Service, Mr Danczuk said: "I have met with Leicestershire police and discussed the allegations in detail.

"Children being violated, raped and tortured - some in the very building in which we now sit."

The Rochdale MP continued: "If Lord Janner really is too ill to face prosecution, then why can't the courts establish this with a fitness to plead process?

"This would clear up doubts that still linger, for example why he was still visiting parliament on official visits after he was declared unfit to face justice."

Allegations against the 86-year-old Labour peer first surfaced in 1991

He said that a "trial of the facts" would allow the victims to tell their stories, but he said the DPP had said that would not be in the public interest.

"Personally I fail to see how the knowledge that a peer of the realm is a serial child abuser is not in the public interest," the MP added.

Mr Danczuk was repeatedly warned by the chair of the debate, Conservative MP Anne Main, against criticising Lord Janner.

A former DPP-turned-Labour MP, Sir Keir Starmer, said: "The decision before the DPP was not an easy decision. It was a stark and difficult choice between two unattractive approaches.

"We should respect the independence she brought to the decision making, and the fact she's had that decision out for a review.

"To that extent I think we should inhibit our comments on the case."